1. Title, director and release year? ‘The Forest for the Trees,’ Directed by Bernadine Mellis (2006) 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? This film follows the battle between activists and the U.S. government with personal tone from the relationship between the director, Mellis, and her father Dennis Cunningham. Cunningham represented activist Judi Bari during the case in which the FBI tried to discredit her and the Earth First! Organization after Bari and another activist were targeted with a pipe bomb. The film focuses on not only the story behind the case, but also all details of Bari’s life that made her such an important figurehead in the activist realm. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? This documentary takes a different stance at sustainability issues by bringing light to the political connections and effects that activists have on the social level, not only in gathering attention but also in creating disruptions to the perspectives that society is given about the government’s control of information and social/cultural organization. Mellis focuses on the events surrounding the pipe bomb that went off in Judi Bari’s car on May 24, 1990. She and co-activist Darryl Cherney were charged for the possession and transportation of explosives in relationship to their involvement in targeting logging practices. While they were accused and labeled as “terrorists” by the FBI, the charges were eventually dropped, but a civil suit case was brought against the FBI and local police involved in the accident; charges of attempts to discredit Bari were made. After 12 years, the case finally made it to trial, undergoing many fallbacks based on inadequate representation of the opposing parties. After years of appeals, 2002 marked the final trial where parties were brought to court and were forced to address issue of false arrest, tainted evidence, and efforts to discredit the Earth First! Organization and Judi Bari. The final settling of $4.4 million and acknowledgement of how the government tried to discredit Bari’s reputation were awarded to Bari’s counsel. The case and media coverage surrounding the trial brought to light problems of the legal system, political problems and the government’s admission of involvement in targeting activists, and how media and informational problems can arise from what should be known without censorship and what is forced to be known with censorship to better image. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? - FBI and local enforcement’s lack of correlating stories about the bombing, crime scene, and evidence [FBI’s evidence: visible bomb “under” (rhetorical misunderstanding during reports) backseat floorboard, identical nails to those found in trunk, belong to ‘violent radical/extremist environmental organization’] - Around the Redwood Summer event, Bari started receiving death threats; and did Special Agent Sena investigate the threats? No, he “wasn’t all that involved/interested” in the matter. - Relationships that activists can have with those working for the industries targeted by the activists (e.g. loggers working for logging companies; strict and safe guidelines set by Bari to not endanger the workers, but to get their point across to media and companies); it was very dangerous that she was appreciated/liked by the loggers because they knew that she wasn’t trying to get them out of jobs, but rather protect a dwindling resource - Bari’s defense was made up on fellow Earth First! activists and counsel brought in by Cunningham; demonstrates support group and cooperation that can be found between two different groups of people (as long as there is motivation and cooperation) - The effects that Bari had on her legal counsel, even after she was gone…how what she stands for and the delivery of her views can affect the audience and get people thinking in a different way - How Cunningham ‘played his cards right’ (at legal system), but justice is so laborious and difficult to obtain 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? - How the trial could come to a conclusion that punitive damages should be awarded because of Bari’s tarnished reputation, but no further investigation was initiated into finding who the true bomber was; this leaves me convinced of the FBI’s involvement, but also leaves me doubting the power and justice that the judicial process can deliver 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? - If and how were logging industrialists involved? - Did Bari as figurehead for activists get attacked, or just Judi Bari the woman? - Why was the FBI not interested in who bombed the car…were they involved firsthand or just as a cover-up for something bigger? 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? Educationally it best serves as an eye-opener for student to know that it’s not just about people fighting for environmental protection and conservation on the social level, but also the connections that their influence can make on people to bring awareness and fear to more deeply connected parties. Bari and Earth First! were able to make a substantial impact on are of the U.S., and the government couldn’t stand that change was about to occur; they enjoyed the economic growth and couldn’t stand to see it disrupted. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? - Benefits from media coverage to educate the masses, though keeping in mind bias and adjusted reports with regards to an image that the media station (or the corporation that they’re owned by) wants to portray - How many flaws or issues that compile from within the system and make it more difficult to master. Is going to court even worth it? Even if you ‘win’ what do you actually win? Media coverage, damages? Understanding the legal system and how it can be manipulated are crucial in creating and winning a case - Always something to clean up in the government…it’s not a fair fight, and probably will never be because of financial connections; cleaning up these connections and getting the government on the right track towards understanding and implementing sustainable practices (including listening to facts, not just what’s best for corporate pockets) 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? - Knowing more about what Bari and Earth First! stood for would have been most effective in understanding what they were fighting for and how much of an impact they really had on audiences; clearly they enough of a dent to warrant governmental involvement, so what where they trying to change, other than logging practices?
‘The Forest for the Trees,’ Directed by Bernadine Mellis (2006)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film follows the battle between activists and the U.S. government with personal tone from the relationship between the director, Mellis, and her father Dennis Cunningham. Cunningham represented activist Judi Bari during the case in which the FBI tried to discredit her and the Earth First! Organization after Bari and another activist were targeted with a pipe bomb. The film focuses on not only the story behind the case, but also all details of Bari’s life that made her such an important figurehead in the activist realm.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This documentary takes a different stance at sustainability issues by bringing light to the political connections and effects that activists have on the social level, not only in gathering attention but also in creating disruptions to the perspectives that society is given about the government’s control of information and social/cultural organization.
Mellis focuses on the events surrounding the pipe bomb that went off in Judi Bari’s car on May 24, 1990. She and co-activist Darryl Cherney were charged for the possession and transportation of explosives in relationship to their involvement in targeting logging practices. While they were accused and labeled as “terrorists” by the FBI, the charges were eventually dropped, but a civil suit case was brought against the FBI and local police involved in the accident; charges of attempts to discredit Bari were made. After 12 years, the case finally made it to trial, undergoing many fallbacks based on inadequate representation of the opposing parties. After years of appeals, 2002 marked the final trial where parties were brought to court and were forced to address issue of false arrest, tainted evidence, and efforts to discredit the Earth First! Organization and Judi Bari. The final settling of $4.4 million and acknowledgement of how the government tried to discredit Bari’s reputation were awarded to Bari’s counsel.
The case and media coverage surrounding the trial brought to light problems of the legal system, political problems and the government’s admission of involvement in targeting activists, and how media and informational problems can arise from what should be known without censorship and what is forced to be known with censorship to better image.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- FBI and local enforcement’s lack of correlating stories about the bombing, crime scene, and evidence [FBI’s evidence: visible bomb “under” (rhetorical misunderstanding during reports) backseat floorboard, identical nails to those found in trunk, belong to ‘violent radical/extremist environmental organization’]
- Around the Redwood Summer event, Bari started receiving death threats; and did Special Agent Sena investigate the threats? No, he “wasn’t all that involved/interested” in the matter.
- Relationships that activists can have with those working for the industries targeted by the activists (e.g. loggers working for logging companies; strict and safe guidelines set by Bari to not endanger the workers, but to get their point across to media and companies); it was very dangerous that she was appreciated/liked by the loggers because they knew that she wasn’t trying to get them out of jobs, but rather protect a dwindling resource
- Bari’s defense was made up on fellow Earth First! activists and counsel brought in by Cunningham; demonstrates support group and cooperation that can be found between two different groups of people (as long as there is motivation and cooperation)
- The effects that Bari had on her legal counsel, even after she was gone…how what she stands for and the delivery of her views can affect the audience and get people thinking in a different way
- How Cunningham ‘played his cards right’ (at legal system), but justice is so laborious and difficult to obtain
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
- How the trial could come to a conclusion that punitive damages should be awarded because of Bari’s tarnished reputation, but no further investigation was initiated into finding who the true bomber was; this leaves me convinced of the FBI’s involvement, but also leaves me doubting the power and justice that the judicial process can deliver
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- If and how were logging industrialists involved?
- Did Bari as figurehead for activists get attacked, or just Judi Bari the woman?
- Why was the FBI not interested in who bombed the car…were they involved firsthand or just as a cover-up for something bigger?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Educationally it best serves as an eye-opener for student to know that it’s not just about people fighting for environmental protection and conservation on the social level, but also the connections that their influence can make on people to bring awareness and fear to more deeply connected parties. Bari and Earth First! were able to make a substantial impact on are of the U.S., and the government couldn’t stand that change was about to occur; they enjoyed the economic growth and couldn’t stand to see it disrupted.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- Benefits from media coverage to educate the masses, though keeping in mind bias and adjusted reports with regards to an image that the media station (or the corporation that they’re owned by) wants to portray
- How many flaws or issues that compile from within the system and make it more difficult to master. Is going to court even worth it? Even if you ‘win’ what do you actually win? Media coverage, damages? Understanding the legal system and how it can be manipulated are crucial in creating and winning a case
- Always something to clean up in the government…it’s not a fair fight, and probably will never be because of financial connections; cleaning up these connections and getting the government on the right track towards understanding and implementing sustainable practices (including listening to facts, not just what’s best for corporate pockets)
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- Knowing more about what Bari and Earth First! stood for would have been most effective in understanding what they were fighting for and how much of an impact they really had on audiences; clearly they enough of a dent to warrant governmental involvement, so what where they trying to change, other than logging practices?